CaledonianCraig wrote:But at the end of the day do opinions here count for Jack?

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for who the next coach should be? Well whoever Andy thinks will be best suited to solve his issues

CaledonianCraig wrote:Who that will be I have no idea.

With all respect CC those are counter-productive non-statements. What if every poster on here said: "Who's Murray's next coach? Well, whoever he wants it to be" or "Lets judge the next coach on results"? Then it would be a completely boring forum. Yes there is negativity and positivity...its the mods job to ensure it doesn't flow over. Otherwise, yes we all know we're ALL armchair warriors on here, none of us are linked to the professional game. But so what? It doesn't stop us having opinions and its fun to exchange opinions, things that push the boat forward, not to just comment on the fact there is a boat and its moving about on the water. That's not stating anything.

Tell us CC - who would you like to see as his coach and why? What "bring something new to his game" does he need? You're meant to be his biggest fan on here - so what do you think?

Also, I don't particularly remember any Berdych beneficiary comments either. Although - so what if there were? People get things wrong...opinions are opinions. Its what makes the world go round...otherwise its a very dry fact-based place. In any case, people are too quick to judge on Danny anyway - the slide of Berdy is not JUST down to the coach...players have to take a lot of the responsibility for their fate too! At least Nadal was man enough to admit when things were going wrong that it was his fault, not his teams'. Perhaps Berdych just needs to man up, absorb the bagels and admit his failings and just get on with it. If Danny isn't right for him - and often reasons for things not working are complex - then move on. But lets not stifle the expression of opinion on here...if we feel A, B or C is the right man for Murray then lets have it out...if someone has a better idea or reasons why Wilander is a complete chump, great...but lets not say "Whoever Andy thinks is best is fine" and leave it there...

Well it is true whoever is appointed will be up for criticism regardless. With Lendl it was chucked around that Lendl had been out of the sport for years so what possibly could he bring? With Mauresmo she came with her own forum critics.

As for who I'd go for well that is pretty immaterial as my knowledge of their coaching ability compared to Andy whose choice it is - is too vast to put into words. Who I think Andy will take on is someone he respects and admires as those are the sort he listens too and takes their tips on board. Lendl worked as Lendl was a multiple slam winner who had to overcome several slam final defeats before succeeding - something Andy could associate with ans he experienced those losses as well. Also for Lendl's other traits such as dedication to hard work and dry sense of humour. Who fits the bill now? I really am not sure at all. I am an old romantic and personally would love to see someone like John McEnroe or Jimmy Connors in Andy's corner but can't see that happening. Your shout of Wilander ticks boxes but he is a very laid back individual so could he handle Andy who can be intense? I am not sure.

I genuinely thought it was accepted that Wilander was a bit of an eccentric who is quite entertaining to listen to on GSM but everything he says has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I don't see his quirky personality meshing with the focussed Murray, his last coaching stint ended after 6 days, his style of play is precisely the opposite of how Andy needs to play and his suggestions of how to play Novak in that article Lydian quoted ranged between bizarre (attack the Novak backhand as he can only bunt it back) to obvious (mix it up). I don't see that working at all.

I'd love to see him get Norman who looks entirely the right fit to me. If not, I wouldn't be against Leon Smith if he'd travel. Not sure he has the time though.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But at the end of the day do opinions here count for Jack?

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for who the next coach should be? Well whoever Andy thinks will be best suited to solve his issues

CaledonianCraig wrote:Who that will be I have no idea.

With all respect CC those are counter-productive non-statements. What if every poster on here said: "Who's Murray's next coach? Well, whoever he wants it to be" or "Lets judge the next coach on results"? Then it would be a completely boring forum. Yes there is negativity and positivity...its the mods job to ensure it doesn't flow over. Otherwise, yes we all know we're ALL armchair warriors on here, none of us are linked to the professional game. But so what? It doesn't stop us having opinions and its fun to exchange opinions, things that push the boat forward, not to just comment on the fact there is a boat and its moving about on the water. That's not stating anything.

Tell us CC - who would you like to see as his coach and why? What "bring something new to his game" does he need? You're meant to be his biggest fan on here - so what do you think?

Also, I don't particularly remember any Berdych beneficiary comments either. Although - so what if there were? People get things wrong...opinions are opinions. Its what makes the world go round...otherwise its a very dry fact-based place. In any case, people are too quick to judge on Danny anyway - the slide of Berdy is not JUST down to the coach...players have to take a lot of the responsibility for their fate too! At least Nadal was man enough to admit when things were going wrong that it was his fault, not his teams'. Perhaps Berdych just needs to man up, absorb the bagels and admit his failings and just get on with it. If Danny isn't right for him - and often reasons for things not working are complex - then move on. But lets not stifle the expression of opinion on here...if we feel A, B or C is the right man for Murray then lets have it out...if someone has a better idea or reasons why Wilander is a complete chump, great...but lets not say "Whoever Andy thinks is best is fine" and leave it there...

Well it is true whoever is appointed will be up for criticism regardless. With Lendl it was chucked around that Lendl had been out of the sport for years so what possibly could he bring? With Mauresmo she came with her own forum critics.

As for who I'd go for well that is pretty immaterial as my knowledge of their coaching ability compared to Andy whose choice it is - is too vast to put into words. Who I think Andy will take on is someone he respects and admires as those are the sort he listens too and takes their tips on board. Lendl worked as Lendl was a multiple slam winner who had to overcome several slam final defeats before succeeding - something Andy could associate with ans he experienced those losses as well. Also for Lendl's other traits such as dedication to hard work and dry sense of humour. Who fits the bill now? I really am not sure at all. I am an old romantic and personally would love to see someone like John McEnroe or Jimmy Connors in Andy's corner but can't see that happening. Your shout of Wilander ticks boxes but he is a very laid back individual so could he handle Andy who can be intense? I am not sure.

That's rife in any sport CC. Look at the criticism Becker took when he was appointed and even to an extent Ljubicic. People will always not agree on the best candidate for any coaching/managerial role. The bigger question is that are these appointments who are labelled 'coaches' coaching or are they consulting? I would've had the old pro's like Lendl/Becker/Edberg down as more consultants really.

I'd only say no way to Connors. Made no head way with Roddick and didn't last long with Sharapova McEnroe is an interesting one.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But at the end of the day do opinions here count for Jack?

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for who the next coach should be? Well whoever Andy thinks will be best suited to solve his issues

CaledonianCraig wrote:Who that will be I have no idea.

With all respect CC those are counter-productive non-statements. What if every poster on here said: "Who's Murray's next coach? Well, whoever he wants it to be" or "Lets judge the next coach on results"? Then it would be a completely boring forum. Yes there is negativity and positivity...its the mods job to ensure it doesn't flow over. Otherwise, yes we all know we're ALL armchair warriors on here, none of us are linked to the professional game. But so what? It doesn't stop us having opinions and its fun to exchange opinions, things that push the boat forward, not to just comment on the fact there is a boat and its moving about on the water. That's not stating anything.

Tell us CC - who would you like to see as his coach and why? What "bring something new to his game" does he need? You're meant to be his biggest fan on here - so what do you think?

Also, I don't particularly remember any Berdych beneficiary comments either. Although - so what if there were? People get things wrong...opinions are opinions. Its what makes the world go round...otherwise its a very dry fact-based place. In any case, people are too quick to judge on Danny anyway - the slide of Berdy is not JUST down to the coach...players have to take a lot of the responsibility for their fate too! At least Nadal was man enough to admit when things were going wrong that it was his fault, not his teams'. Perhaps Berdych just needs to man up, absorb the bagels and admit his failings and just get on with it. If Danny isn't right for him - and often reasons for things not working are complex - then move on. But lets not stifle the expression of opinion on here...if we feel A, B or C is the right man for Murray then lets have it out...if someone has a better idea or reasons why Wilander is a complete chump, great...but lets not say "Whoever Andy thinks is best is fine" and leave it there...

Well it is true whoever is appointed will be up for criticism regardless. With Lendl it was chucked around that Lendl had been out of the sport for years so what possibly could he bring? With Mauresmo she came with her own forum critics.

As for who I'd go for well that is pretty immaterial as my knowledge of their coaching ability compared to Andy whose choice it is - is too vast to put into words. Who I think Andy will take on is someone he respects and admires as those are the sort he listens too and takes their tips on board. Lendl worked as Lendl was a multiple slam winner who had to overcome several slam final defeats before succeeding - something Andy could associate with ans he experienced those losses as well. Also for Lendl's other traits such as dedication to hard work and dry sense of humour. Who fits the bill now? I really am not sure at all. I am an old romantic and personally would love to see someone like John McEnroe or Jimmy Connors in Andy's corner but can't see that happening. Your shout of Wilander ticks boxes but he is a very laid back individual so could he handle Andy who can be intense? I am not sure.

That's rife in any sport CC. Look at the criticism Becker took when he was appointed and even to an extent Ljubicic. People will always not agree on the best candidate for any coaching/managerial role. The bigger question is that are these appointments who are labelled 'coaches' coaching or are they consulting? I would've had the old pro's like Lendl/Becker/Edberg down as more consultants really.

I'd only say no way to Connors. Made no head way with Roddick and didn't last long with Sharapova McEnroe is an interesting one.

Yes of course lk. In a lot of ways although players have coaches a lot of the time they are confidants who offer more to the tactical and mental side of the game rather than the technical. If you ask me I think Murray needs more of the former but if they can offer the latter as well then that would be a bonus.

I like the idea of Willander. He would command instant respect from Andy, and also he was mentally very tough and will help him be more steely in those crunch moments. I don't think he's the rambling idiot that some do, I quite like his commentary.

I love the thought of Agassi, but I also very much doubt that's realistic. I think it's critical that Andy has someone who can empathise with those crunch moments in crunch matches and how to approach those moments.

French tennis player assumes the cause of the division between Andy Murray and Amelie Mauresmo took place immediately after the final lost by the number 3 in the world in Madrid against Novak Djokovic

The shocking news of the separation between Murray and Mauresmo comes immediately after the final lost in Madrid by the Scottish tennis player against Djokovic. Many have speculated the causes that led to this solution and of L'Equipe - Julien Benneteau:

"Already in Miami, Amelie was not in Andy's box during games. Sometimes he can be very nervous on the court and places insults to his team" says the Frenchman who then launches a new dig at the number 3 in the world. "Amelie did not longer want to continue to be insulted in front of the cameras. This showed that she was totally independent."

Curious...is Julien saying she was tired of being "insulted" so hid away from the box and this was an underlying factor in their separation? Always strikes me that "wanting more time with the family" is the stock way out of these partnerships at the moment given its what has been attributed to splits with Lendl, Mauresmo and Edberg.

Don't take this as I like I am absolving Andy of his ways, but to me I can't say I see his rants as "insults" granted he looks to his box and goes all megaton Tourette's. That's who he is. It's habit and not one he is going to break anytime soon.

Someone who is a bit rough around the edges isn't something that is uncommon.

Smart, recent, played at the highest level, former number 1 and multiple slam winner.No-one worked as hard as he did and lets face it, if Murray wants to beat Djokovic he has to be able to stay with him physically for five sets.

Smart, recent, played at the highest level, former number 1 and multiple slam winner.No-one worked as hard as he did and lets face it, if Murray wants to beat Djokovic he has to be able to stay with him physically for five sets.

Courier has coaching experience too with the US DC team

emancipator

That is a decent shout.

Rumours also abound that Lendl returning hasn't been ruled out. Personally, I'd be dubious about that move. In sport ex-players/managers returning to former clubs to recreate glory is never as good the second time around. I'd sooner he went down a fresh route so to speak.

Well both are really big Gingers. They are both part of the rare club of six three and over, ginger, and really amazing at tennis. Courier though I can't see doing a full year's schedule. He is a really involved guy with lots of fires burning at once. He is basically the main promoter and CEO of the US circuit of the Senior tour and he plays. He also does some broadcasting and working with the US Federation. I mean Murray would have to make it worth his while because he makes a lot of money without the extra work and travel of coaching. Still I think the kind of guy Courier is, if Andy gave him a big check and more importantly bought in and made him the main gun he would do it. Courier is an interesting dude. I have always kind of liked him and then kind of felt weird about him at the same time, kind of like Murray to be honest. And if Courier could make Murray's forehand 3/4s the fh that big Jim's FH was well then Murray's results would shoot up. Courier retired before the poly revolution in tennis, I don't even want to think what he would do to the FH with Luxilon strings. He had the modern FH, before the modern strings.

"Murray revealed that he had gone outside his immediate entourage for help with his serve. Louis Cayer, who works with the Scot’s brother Jamie, and Ben Haran, a coach at the tennis academy at Reed’s School in Surrey, have been particularly helpful. Murray’s mother, Judy, also had some input.

“A lot of the ex-players don’t know that side of things as much,” Murray said. “They’ve never had to teach someone how to serve. They serve fine themselves. It’s easy to say: ‘Hit the second serve harder.’ But you need to have the technique to be able to do that.

“By making the changes in my technique and watching stuff online as well and just basically trying to learn about it has made a huge difference. I’m really happy about that. I think it obviously helps me on the clay, but I think I’ll get big rewards for that during the grass-court season if I keep improving it and it keeps going that way. It’s been a big positive for me.”

He added: “I have made some changes to my technique, quite significant ones that maybe don’t look as big, but significant changes that help me mentally when I go to serve. I don’t think I’m going to miss if I serve at 100 miles an hour. I now think I’m going to make it every time"

Has anyone noticed what has changed? I can see its way better in delivery and results, but I can't see any obvious technical changes.

"Murray revealed that he had gone outside his immediate entourage for help with his serve. Louis Cayer, who works with the Scot’s brother Jamie, and Ben Haran, a coach at the tennis academy at Reed’s School in Surrey, have been particularly helpful. Murray’s mother, Judy, also had some input.

“A lot of the ex-players don’t know that side of things as much,” Murray said. “They’ve never had to teach someone how to serve. They serve fine themselves. It’s easy to say: ‘Hit the second serve harder.’ But you need to have the technique to be able to do that.

“By making the changes in my technique and watching stuff online as well and just basically trying to learn about it has made a huge difference. I’m really happy about that. I think it obviously helps me on the clay, but I think I’ll get big rewards for that during the grass-court season if I keep improving it and it keeps going that way. It’s been a big positive for me.”

He added: “I have made some changes to my technique, quite significant ones that maybe don’t look as big, but significant changes that help me mentally when I go to serve. I don’t think I’m going to miss if I serve at 100 miles an hour. I now think I’m going to make it every time"

Has anyone noticed what has changed? I can see its way better in delivery and results, but I can't see any obvious technical changes.

Thanks for this.

Traced this to an Independent Article posted yesterday late evening. Can't trace the actual interview but seems to be recent and maybe in Paris in preparation for the French Open. He seems to be talking about something he has been working on this year and specifically before and during this years Clay Court Season. It just seems a little surprising how he has gone about it and why he hasn't properly addressed it before. Better late than never I suppose. The crucial test is whether he is able to sustain it under pressure. That is when it has tended to break down. Quite often he will lose his serve immediately after breaking a serve (e.g. against Djokovic). He seems to indicate that he is focusing on the second serve, that this requires a different technique to the first serve, and with this technique he has confidence he can get it in serving at 100 mph. I think many of the top players can serve their second serve at 110 - 118 mph, whereas for Murray his second serve has tended to drop below 100 mph even into the 80s at times.

But from what I read there, it almost sounded like he was not really trying to do everything possible - that was what astonished me.

You yourself say that he may have spent years assuming it could not be improved. That is exactly the sense I was getting from the article - that he would be willing to just assume that it cannot be improved and then later find out through things as trivial as internet and talking to mom that in fact he could improve it.

To me it reads as if Ferrari spent the whole season trying to figure out how to make a critical component work right and then found out two races before the season ended that they could just duct-tape it and - voila - it worked. Bizarre, and simultaneously not very good (did you really leave something so easily fixable alone for so long?) but also almost too good to be true (is it really possible that you can fix a major flaw of 10+ years so easily?).

Anyway, let's see how it works in crunch time. If it works well - good for him!

He just didn't have highly technical coaches before...had he been with someone like Cahill, Wilander, Stefanki, Norman, Annacone then I think they would have addressed it sooner. It is a glaring gap to have carried this long...and the fact he's carried this long may also mean he was also naive as to what the specific problem was.

Nadal used a renowned serve coach to change his serve going into USO10...and he made Rafa change the angle of his racquet going into the trophy pose but I haven't analysed Murrays change...but a simple adjustment on serve can often make a massive difference so it is possible to analyse video footage, inc his own serve, and speak to a couple of coaches to work out what needed to be done.

To be fair to Andy Murray he has been in a sports celebrity bubble and hasn't worked in the real world. In the real world one analyses the competition and tries to copy all the best bits. In Murray's case he could have analysed the second serve of other players and seen that they were able to hit their second serve confidently and regularly at 100+ mph ... even 110 to 120 mph. Even players that are shorter than Murray can do this. This should have given him a clue that it is possible to serve your second serve well and above 100 mph. It is worrying to know that Andy Murray was of the opinion he is unable to correct his technical weaknesses. I suppose that is the reason why he kept saying in interviews he needed to improve his strength and stamina and reaction times.

Yes or rather he focused so much on physical development that the technical areas were relatively neglected. This is why for me he wants to get back to focusing on his core game...to aid variety, serve and stay ahead of the pack which he's seeing coming through now. Hence he probably decided Mauresmo wasn't the coach to help him with this shift...she's not technical enough. Will be interesting to see if we see Murray adopt a different type of coach next time...ie, more technical or whether he thinks he can address his own technical areas but just needs a tactical wise sage in his corner for battles with the top 3.

Nore Staat wrote:To be fair to Andy Murray he has been in a sports celebrity bubble and hasn't worked in the real world. In the real world one analyses the competition and tries to copy all the best bits. In Murray's case he could have analysed the second serve of other players and seen that they were able to hit their second serve confidently and regularly at 100+ mph ... even 110 to 120 mph. Even players that are shorter than Murray can do this. This should have given him a clue that it is possible to serve your second serve well and above 100 mph. It is worrying to know that Andy Murray was of the opinion he is unable to correct his technical weaknesses. I suppose that is the reason why he kept saying in interviews he needed to improve his strength and stamina and reaction times.

Or perhaps he just didn't notice that he had the 2nd serve of a mediocre WTA player.

I think it's suspicious that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc. never really went after it blatantly, but rather tried to maintain the illusion that it was a challenging shot. Sneaky b******s!

Nore Staat wrote:To be fair to Andy Murray he has been in a sports celebrity bubble and hasn't worked in the real world. In the real world one analyses the competition and tries to copy all the best bits. In Murray's case he could have analysed the second serve of other players and seen that they were able to hit their second serve confidently and regularly at 100+ mph ... even 110 to 120 mph. Even players that are shorter than Murray can do this. This should have given him a clue that it is possible to serve your second serve well and above 100 mph. It is worrying to know that Andy Murray was of the opinion he is unable to correct his technical weaknesses. I suppose that is the reason why he kept saying in interviews he needed to improve his strength and stamina and reaction times.

Sports celebrity bubble???!!!! Hasn't worked in the real world??!! Murray's arguably the hardest working tennis player out there. If he's as you describe, goodness knows what it says about the rest

I like you comments generally NS, but sometimes - you make me chuckle so much with your analysis of Murray it's not true

The fact is and yes it was an error, is that he overtly relied on his coaches to correct the problem. I really don't see why people are so astonished by this. Tsonga's turned bad coaching decisions and hence improvements in his game, into an art form.

For me it would be very easy to make this mistake and very easy to criticise on hindsight. He would have surely discussed this with his various coaches, all of whom clearly didn't see it as a problem. And to be fair I never have, up to last year, either. His return and other aspects of his game is so good, I'm not certain a coach would risk interfering with his progress - after all that's what he's proof of, improvement year upon year

So yes, I think it's very easy to have ignored this, simply because it was probably the hardest to correct, with little return in comparison to the improvement on the forehand

Let's at least give Andy at break, for at least still making it, despite this obvious, in hindsight, severe oversight

Him and Novak are always so harshly judged. Isn't it pretty good that he's won 12 (or whatever it is) Masters a couple of slams and comeback from some serious back surgery. Yet this ignorance of his serve is "worrying". Jeez!!!! I could understand if he's won nowt!!!

Nore Staat wrote:To be fair to Andy Murray he has been in a sports celebrity bubble and hasn't worked in the real world. In the real world one analyses the competition and tries to copy all the best bits. In Murray's case he could have analysed the second serve of other players and seen that they were able to hit their second serve confidently and regularly at 100+ mph ... even 110 to 120 mph. Even players that are shorter than Murray can do this. This should have given him a clue that it is possible to serve your second serve well and above 100 mph. It is worrying to know that Andy Murray was of the opinion he is unable to correct his technical weaknesses. I suppose that is the reason why he kept saying in interviews he needed to improve his strength and stamina and reaction times.

Or perhaps he just didn't notice that he had the 2nd serve of a mediocre WTA player.

I think it's suspicious that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc. never really went after it blatantly, but rather tried to maintain the illusion that it was a challenging shot. Sneaky b******s!

You jest, but the second serve still gave some decent % win points. It wasn't costing him much. I mean he served like a lemon at Wimby 2013 and still won in straights.

Fact is, it has never been a big factor. He's 23rd on the all time ATP (second serve points won) list, above Nadal, Wawrinka and Roddick

Lol, you want to try being a Nadal fan...this is nothing compared to the vitriol he's had.

Nah! Nadal gets the respect. Yes, he's been a bit written off and of course does get some disrespectful nonsense - but that's always from Fed fans, annoyed at him for been around preventing Roger win half a dozen more slams

In fairness, it's Novak who I think cops it the most. I just don't think people realise how good the top two are. Hence, they get grudging respect but far more attention is paid to their flaws

Nore Staat wrote:To be fair to Andy Murray he has been in a sports celebrity bubble and hasn't worked in the real world. In the real world one analyses the competition and tries to copy all the best bits. In Murray's case he could have analysed the second serve of other players and seen that they were able to hit their second serve confidently and regularly at 100+ mph ... even 110 to 120 mph. Even players that are shorter than Murray can do this. This should have given him a clue that it is possible to serve your second serve well and above 100 mph. It is worrying to know that Andy Murray was of the opinion he is unable to correct his technical weaknesses. I suppose that is the reason why he kept saying in interviews he needed to improve his strength and stamina and reaction times.

Or perhaps he just didn't notice that he had the 2nd serve of a mediocre WTA player.

I think it's suspicious that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc. never really went after it blatantly, but rather tried to maintain the illusion that it was a challenging shot. Sneaky b******s!

You jest, but the second serve still gave some decent % win points. It wasn't costing him much. I mean he served like a lemon at Wimby 2013 and still won in straights.

Fact is, it has never been a big factor. He's 23rd on the all time ATP (second serve points won) list, above Nadal, Wawrinka and Roddick

But of course we can now all see how good he would have been and so the OTT negative reaction, to a player who should be admired, for bothering to work it out - even though his coaches never did

Whilst agreeing with the overall point, hes 37th on that list on 52%. He is well behind Rafa and Roddick who are on 57% and 56% respectively. It's only really been an issue over the last year or so - largely just in the match up with Novak. I can see why it wasn't the focus before. Ultimately, it's a mental thing primarily. I've no doubt he comfortably hit second serves at 100+ with his previous action. However, if a slight tweak has increased his confidence in the second serve then that's fantastic news for his career.